This is a tremendously important subject, which seems a little shortchanged in this short opinion. It would have been helpful, and interesting, to learn more about the British government requested study and its conclusions. It is important ,as well, to understand how US policies fit into the big picture, which is the main focus of the article, where the writer voices his opinion that the US, and especially the Bush administration, is likely to bring us to the point of calamity.

The issue of "Google bombing" described in this story is an important one that is covered in a narrow context in this article. The NYT article predominantly descibes one effort to manipulate search results by one person, but in doing so the article illustrates the general problem of "Google bombing", one that is probably already well known by small businesses, whose own websites are often much harder to find than large companies with sophisticated web support. This story seems to imply that the tactic is a new political tool, and perhaps it is, at least as proposed by Chris Bowers who is credited with the Google bomb effort described in the article, however it would seem that sophisticated political campaigns would have made use ... More »

This story describes well the difficulty of a political figure with aspirations for the presidency in standing by his convictions when those convictions are not shared by those voters identified as otherwise likely supporters. Opposing views are provided, and there are enough relevant facts with attribution to give a good sense of the problem that is the main focus of the article.

This article illustrates a typical shortcoming of articles targeted to a local audience - knowledge of the facts and developments related in prior articles is required for full understanding of the current reading. As an outsider reading this report, one feels she has entered a conversation in the middle. While I think that this story is meant to be balanced, and probably it is, so many very important questions are left unanswered for me, including details of the HAVA requirement; background on the Diebold touchscreen controversy in this county; the troublesome nature of the VotePad; why the county did not buy fewer machines as proposed to save money. One by one, counties across the nation are wrestling with this issue. ... More »

This story reports one CNN poll, mainly by adding together the responses of individuals participating in the poll and presenting the total as percentages. Several times, the authors characterized the poll result using terms like "most" Americans or "tepid" poll numbers. for me, the word "most" does not accurately characterize the 54% of Americans to which it refers. When one actually looks at the poll results, the responses don't seem to have changed much in the last 4 months, and thus the main inference of the article seems off base.

This is a very important story, gripping and extremely well written. The author did an outstanding job of citing actual verifiable facts, including names, times, places, and content that could easily be debunked if not true. The burden was not placed on the reader to find out who said what when, but enough information was cited so that a skeptical reader could determine, with a little research, the validity of the assertions made.

Well written article describing the shortcoming (or intentional misrepresentation) of the facts when context is not included. Article seems well researched and citations are very credible.

The sentiments of this writer are shared by many Americans who see no reason to expand investigative powers when those already in place have not been shown to be ineffective. However, this writer is analyzing a particular incident in this national debate, and his opinion is greatly undermined by his lack of evidence for his view. He may be right, but his assertions are virtually without verifiable citations. Referencing "one official" or "two sources" is inadequate and tempts the reader to be wary of every assertion made. Additionally lacking is an explanation of the British law that would be analogous to FISA. Doesn't it matter what British law enforcement was permitted to do in pursuit of the investigation? Of course it is ... More »

In some respects, it is unfair to assess an editorial as one would a news report. However, this editorial appears to reflect the position and views of a newspaper or journal's editorial board, thus it would seem that the writers would wish to persuade readers using reliable sources. Further, the main point - that U.S. officials need to "get serious" about stopping terrorists - is a point of view desparately in need of a context. Are we actually exptected to believe they are not serious? The evidence to support this is nowhere to be found in the editorial.

This article is well written and interesting...as far as it goes. What it seems to understate is the overall usefullness of the discovery of a second DNA code. I think that the reader can accept the notion that discovery of a second DNA code may be a very useful advance in general understanding of how DNA directs the processes for an organism, but it might be helpful if the writer could put this discovery into the contexts which are no doubt in the grant funding proposal...the possible advances in medical knowledge.

While the story seems fair, there are so many facts and personalities mentioned, and it doesn't seem to be clear story-telling so that the reader can understand the whole picture. Every part is presented, but it's not really well written.

This story, while very interesting and somewhat thought provoking, is not meant to be a news story. It is an editorial, one that is fairly well written, with points that are well illustrated. What it lacks is documentation that the points being made are valid.

I appreciate the points being made in this story, and I agree with the concern that is aired, but I would have liked to have seen some of the data which led to the conclusions under discussion.